A tragedy for thousands of Americans, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. were a boon for Eurostatists, Eurocrats and other assorted architects of a European state. The superstatists quickly put their own spin on the attacks, arguing that their success proves the impotence and pointlessness of national sovereignty.

As British European Union advocate Graham Watson put it, "The fig leaf of national sovereignty serves only to hide the impotence of nation-states." If Europeans want security from terrorists, they must find it in the centralization of power in the European state.

This theme has been waiting for lift off ever since, five years ago, a European Commission planning document concluded: "It will be difficult to achieve political union [of sovereign countries] without there being the perception of an external political threat. A terrorist outrage would contribute to the perception of an external political threat."

Although the attacks of Sept. 11 were committed against the U.S., Eurostatists have seized on the attack to call for a European arrest warrant, European criminal law based on the Napoleonic model, and the creation of a centralized agency with the combined powers of the FBI and CIA.

These items were on the EU agenda for "judicial integration," but in the aftermath of the September attack on the World Trade Center they have become part of the war against terrorism. Opposition to these measures is fading as no one wants to be accused of being soft on terrorism.

These developments have severe implications for habeas corpus and the English common law tradition. A Greek or Spanish prosecutor would be able to arrest an Englishman without having to meet English standards for extradition.

As well, the EU has defined terrorism broadly enough to include those who oppose increased powers for the EU. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph wagers that the EU's anti-terrorism language "will before the decade is out be used to charge a British citizen engaged in political dissent against the EU."

The English spent 1,000 years making law a shield of the people rather than a weapon in the hands of government. Now this historic achievement is to be vitiated for the sake of "anti-terrorism" measures. No one has explained how these measures could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.

The U.S. and Europe are endangered not by national sovereignty and civil liberties but by immigration policies. It is folly to be allied with Israel against its Muslim enemies and simultaneously to keep one's borders open to Muslim immigrants.

The real situation is different from what political leaders in the U.S. and Europe are saying. The U.S. and Europe are being intentionally flooded with unassimilable Third World peoples in order to destroy the homogeneity of the nation-state and dissolve it in multiculturalism. This prepares the way for superstates ruled by unaccountable elites that turn countries into provinces and the 50 American states into administrative zones for the government in Washington D.C.

It is a hallmark of despotism to combine law enforcement and intelligence agencies under one head. Giving Europol these combined powers is particularly irresponsible as the head of Europol answers only to the management board that appoints him. There is no democratic check on his executive powers.

Unless the U.S. and Europe exercise care in their response to terrorism, they will become more oppressive than the Taliban.

Protecting civil liberties when people are concerned with security requires more judgment than the American Civil Liberties Union recently showed when it demanded that a public school take down a flag with the inscription, "God bless America." If the ACLU foolishly places civil liberties in opposition to public expressions of patriotism, civil liberties will take a big hit.

Indeed, it will look like the ACLU is trying to stamp out God, not defend our liberty.

Good judgment is always in short supply. In times of crisis, it can altogether disappear. We need to keep this in mind and consider whether it is better to restrict immigration instead of our civil liberties.